Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
On Friday, August 23, 2013 2:06:54 PM UTC-5, DhiaDuit wrote:
On Friday, August 23, 2013 11:48:19 AM UTC-5, D. Peter Maus wrote: On 8/18/13 12:34 , wrote: On Sunday, August 18, 2013 10:42:04 AM UTC-4, Jim Haynes wrote: On 2013-08-17, extra class wrote: try 60+ The B-52 took its maiden flight in April 1952. Yes, but the ones currently still flying are the B-52H models that went into service 50 years ago. jhhaynes at earthlink dot net Just how safe is a 50 year old flying machine? You'd be surprised. Unlike automobiles, often underbuilt and subjected to a variety of environmental and chemical abuses, and human inflicted abuses, including ignored maintenance, harsh treatment by operators, poorly maintained roads, and spotty repairs, aircraft are operated in a much less harsh and/or hostile environment. While mechanical stresses in aircraft are significantly more intense than in automotive applications, aircraft systems are more robustly built at points of stress, regularly more aggressively maintained, and are not subjected to the horrors of salt, and environmental abuse. Cars are usually run hard and put up wet. Aircraft are operated in more circumspect manners. All major subsystems, and points of stress are inspected prior to every flight. Shock cooling doesn't happen with aircraft operated by competent pilots. Engines are cool-down run to prevent cracking. Maintenance is much more aggressive. Inspections are frequent and regular. Repairs are more carefully monitored, recorded and logged. In the event of spar rust, as on civilan Beechcraft Bonanzas, recently revealed, military aircraft are either grounded, or the parts replaced. And for the record the rust on the wing spars of Bonanzas, many of which date to the 40's, was revealed by annual and 100 hour inspections. So, a 50 year old military aircraft, while not maintained to the obscene and often punitive levels of civilian aircraft, are better maintained better than any civilian automobile, inspected at regular intervals for mechanical and structural insufficiencies, and are accompanied by records that go back to the first stringers being laid in the airframe. Myself, I drive a 60 year old car. I've gone up in much older aircraft many times with complete confidence. Some Countries have what they call MOT, or versions of MOT thereof. If that MOT was around here, Buku, Buku cars would be grounded. I am an old car nut. What kind of a 60 years old car do you drive? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
Just how safe is a 50 year old flying machine? On 8/23/2013 12:48 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote: You'd be surprised. Unlike automobiles, often underbuilt and subjected to a variety of environmental and chemical abuses, and human inflicted abuses, including ignored maintenance, harsh treatment by operators, poorly maintained roads, and spotty repairs, aircraft are operated in a much less harsh and/or hostile environment. While mechanical stresses in aircraft are significantly more intense than in automotive applications, aircraft systems are more robustly built at points of stress, regularly more aggressively maintained, and are not subjected to the horrors of salt, and environmental abuse. Stresses? I would respectfully point out the commercial airliner that had a portion of the roof peeled off near Hawaii, ostensibly due to the repeated pressurization of the hull. Also recall the Alaskan Airlines(?) plane where the empennage failed due to stress. I've gone up in much older aircraft many times with complete confidence. Ditto. Been up numerous times in a Ford Tri-Motor (produced 1925-1933) with nary a concern (other than going deaf). Also flew a C-54 Skymaster to Texas and lived to tell the tale. :-D |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
On 08/24/2013 07:07 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
Just how safe is a 50 year old flying machine? On 8/23/2013 12:48 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote: You'd be surprised. Unlike automobiles, often underbuilt and subjected to a variety of environmental and chemical abuses, and human inflicted abuses, including ignored maintenance, harsh treatment by operators, poorly maintained roads, and spotty repairs, aircraft are operated in a much less harsh and/or hostile environment. While mechanical stresses in aircraft are significantly more intense than in automotive applications, aircraft systems are more robustly built at points of stress, regularly more aggressively maintained, and are not subjected to the horrors of salt, and environmental abuse. Stresses? I would respectfully point out the commercial airliner that had a portion of the roof peeled off near Hawaii, ostensibly due to the repeated pressurization of the hull. Also recall the Alaskan Airlines(?) plane where the empennage failed due to stress. I've gone up in much older aircraft many times with complete confidence. Ditto. Been up numerous times in a Ford Tri-Motor (produced 1925-1933) with nary a concern (other than going deaf). Also flew a C-54 Skymaster to Texas and lived to tell the tale. :-D This is silly. It reminds me of Reagan's use of battleships. The things have 8 engines (not counting APUs) for crude missiles to lock on. They are sitting ducks in the sky. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
On Saturday, August 24, 2013 10:09:26 AM UTC-5, dave wrote:
On 08/24/2013 07:07 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote: Just how safe is a 50 year old flying machine? On 8/23/2013 12:48 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote: You'd be surprised. Unlike automobiles, often underbuilt and subjected to a variety of environmental and chemical abuses, and human inflicted abuses, including ignored maintenance, harsh treatment by operators, poorly maintained roads, and spotty repairs, aircraft are operated in a much less harsh and/or hostile environment. While mechanical stresses in aircraft are significantly more intense than in automotive applications, aircraft systems are more robustly built at points of stress, regularly more aggressively maintained, and are not subjected to the horrors of salt, and environmental abuse. Stresses? I would respectfully point out the commercial airliner that had a portion of the roof peeled off near Hawaii, ostensibly due to the repeated pressurization of the hull. Also recall the Alaskan Airlines(?) plane where the empennage failed due to stress. I've gone up in much older aircraft many times with complete confidence. Ditto. Been up numerous times in a Ford Tri-Motor (produced 1925-1933) with nary a concern (other than going deaf). Also flew a C-54 Skymaster to Texas and lived to tell the tale. :-D This is silly. It reminds me of Reagan's use of battleships. The things have 8 engines (not counting APUs) for crude missiles to lock on. They are sitting ducks in the sky. Square corner windows in Aircraft. That is a No No. Like Shelby Stanga the Swamp man says, Just Don't Do It!!! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
On Saturday, August 24, 2013 11:09:26 AM UTC-4, dave wrote:
On 08/24/2013 07:07 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote: Just how safe is a 50 year old flying machine? On 8/23/2013 12:48 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote: You'd be surprised. Unlike automobiles, often underbuilt and subjected to a variety of environmental and chemical abuses, and human inflicted abuses, including ignored maintenance, harsh treatment by operators, poorly maintained roads, and spotty repairs, aircraft are operated in a much less harsh and/or hostile environment. While mechanical stresses in aircraft are significantly more intense than in automotive applications, aircraft systems are more robustly built at points of stress, regularly more aggressively maintained, and are not subjected to the horrors of salt, and environmental abuse. Stresses? I would respectfully point out the commercial airliner that had a portion of the roof peeled off near Hawaii, ostensibly due to the repeated pressurization of the hull. Also recall the Alaskan Airlines(?) plane where the empennage failed due to stress. I've gone up in much older aircraft many times with complete confidence. Ditto. Been up numerous times in a Ford Tri-Motor (produced 1925-1933) with nary a concern (other than going deaf). Also flew a C-54 Skymaster to Texas and lived to tell the tale. :-D This is silly. It reminds me of Reagan's use of battleships. The things have 8 engines (not counting APUs) for crude missiles to lock on. They are sitting ducks in the sky. This is why SDI was created. To fight missiles with missiles . |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
On 8/24/13 09:07 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:
While mechanical stresses in aircraft are significantly more intense than in automotive applications, aircraft systems are more robustly built at points of stress, regularly more aggressively maintained, and are not subjected to the horrors of salt, and environmental abuse. Stresses? I would respectfully point out the commercial airliner that had a portion of the roof peeled off near Hawaii, ostensibly due to the repeated pressurization of the hull. Also recall the Alaskan Airlines(?) plane where the empennage failed due to stress. And your point? Or are you arguing just to be arguing. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
jhhaynes wrote: "Yes, but the ones currently still flying are the B-52H models that went into service 50 years ago." Know that, the original pukehead poster forgot to note the variant. Conversion to an all drone usage now, should see its service life to 2111AD. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
ILLEGALS CAUSE MASSIVE CUTS FOR U.S. SENIORS | Swap | |||
MASSIVE ANIME COLECTION NOW AVALABLE | Policy | |||
Massive rally in Baku ! | Shortwave | |||
MASSIVE X-17 SOLAR FLARE ! | General |